, 1887-12-10
HARPER'S DEFENSE.
The Fidelity Bank President
Speaks for Himself.
He Tells of His Dealings
With Wiltshire.
How the Fatal Wheat Deal
Was Worked.
Harper Testlfies.


was crowded. Harper appeared pale and
anxious and his wife looked weary.
Shortly after 10 o'clock Harper was
called to the witness stand. Before he
took the oath, Judge jackson asked:
Did you request to be placed on the
witness stand2"
Yes, sir" was the reply.
In answer to questions by Blackburn,
witness told of his previous business ca
reer, ending with the Fidelity National bank
which he said he organized out Of the
Fidelity Safe Deposit and Trust company.
He said that in September, 1856. he was
induced by Wiltshire to make him a loan
OF S55, 900. Wiltshire at that time was a
debtor to the bank to the amount VI $780,
600, and he represented to Harper nat if
this loan was not made the bank would
suffer. He accommodated him upon TAX
ing an agreement to transfer certain real
estate, also 100 shares of the Fidelity Ma
tional bank at par. All went well until
October, when witness returned from a
little dinner party, composed of Wiltshire
and some of the officers Of the bank, and
found that during his absence Wiltshire,
Eckert & Co.'S check for $26, 900 on the
First National bank had been returned
not good. That check, Wiltshire sad, he
was unable to make good, and the lIdel-
ity bank was compelled to carry it.
Another day, when witness was out,
Wiltshire, Eckert Il Co. got Hopkins to
wire SOC, 600 credit to Chicago upon certi-
fed checks. At the close of business
hours that doy he found Wiltshire, Eckert
Il Cos account overd:awn 500, 600, with
a former debt OF $26, 900, their debt to
the bank of 5000, 900 and their debt to
him of $50 5000. He felt they were in a
dangerous position. Wiltshire transferred
to him some real estate and stock, which
he turned over TO the bank. He stormed
at Wiltshire but could get nothing from
him. He then suggested to the cashier
to take a call loan from Wiltshire, Eckert
& Co. to square their account and save
the cashier.
In answer to direct questions from
Blackburn, Harper stated unreseivedly
that he never gave an order of any kind
to Eckert to buy grain for him in Chicago,
and he was equally sweeping and explicit
in saying that he never authorized Will
shire to buy grain for him in Chicago or
elsewhere. This is the poiut OF the
whole case and is in direct conflict of the
testimony of both Wiltshire and Eckert.
Harper's on the stand showed
what a difficult man he has been for his
attorneys to manage. He took the jury
into his confidence and talked to them
with the purpose OF convincing them, but
all the time tranegressing the rules Of evil
,dence as explained to him by Judge Jack
son. He testified a dozen times to occur
ences which he did not witness. Every
question furnished a new opportunity to
him to say what his intentions were. 1t
seemed like presumption, after Harper's
sweeping denial that he had ever in any
way ordered Wiltshire to buy wheat for
him in Chicago or elsewhere and for his
counsel to hand him three notes bearing
the initials, ~. X, L. l.. H." and ask
him to explain them. Harper said when
Wiltshire, in March, still owed the bank
and him those large sums, he insisted on
his selling out his wheat so as to pay his
debts. Wiltshire said to do so safely he
should buy wheat that day to keep up the
market and then he could sell out to ad-
vantage next day.
HE asked my advice said Harper,
and ] said TO him, make out your order
to buy June wheat, and if it is all right |
will .. X. it. Mr.. Wiltshire sent to the
bank this note that he was going to buy
that day 1870. 900 bushels of wheat. | o
KID it. 1t was no act or account OF min
in any way, shape or form The books
OF the bank will show, | think, that he
paid the bank IA considerable amount Of
money the next day, | had no purpose
whatever in this transaction except to get
the'mopey for the bank that was owing to
it by Wiltshire"
The second note was in cipher, and
Harper said it related to the same sort OF
transaction. The third note he explained
by saying hat Wiltshire told him he had
to pay for a lot of wheat May l.. He
wanted me-" said Harper, TO furnish
money for this purpose, but | refused.
He said | would be sorry. | advised him
to sell May wheat and buy June, and pay
the difference. He asked me to write a
memorandum OF the telegram to that
effect, saying, please change that May
wheat | have not provided for to June
and July. NV principal has decided,
etc. Mr.. Wiltshire represented to me
that he was buying largely for Cleveland
parties, and that is what | suppose he re.
terred to in the words my principal
Witness then asked permission to ex-
PLAIN the check of Wilshlre's for $4,000
in October, but was stopped by the court.
He was then asked if it was given for the
wheat deal, and he answered no, that
it was given to pay bonds which Wiltshire
had h]ypothccated without authority.
Here the court again stopped him and
cautioned him to answer questions and
not go on to %irrcICv matters. But he
again told that Wiltshire had gone to
Cleveland to get help from his father in
law and had come back with nothing, and
later that Wiltshire had mortgaged prop
erty Tor $4,000 and explained to him
that he did so to make good that sur of
money sunk by him in wheat, taken from
his fathers estate. He explained also
how he discounted Lewis notes at Viii
shire's u tg%estlon, and after again deny
ing that a dollar of the banks money or
his went into the wheat deal, went on to
tell of the crash.
Hopkins suggested telegraphing to the
bank in Chicago to see how much they
would take to carry the deal through
Hopkins sent such a telegram to the
American Exchange bank of Chicago,
and when witness returned from dinner